Kerala High Court Accepts Apology from Karma News Directors in Criminal Contempt of Court

Kerala High Court Accepts Apology from Karma News Directors in Criminal Contempt of Court

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided over by Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K. V. Jayakumar, has formally closed criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the directors of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited, the entity operating the web-based channel Karma News. The Court, which had initiated the proceedings suo motu , accepted an unconditional apology from the channel’s leadership, emphasizing the heavy responsibility media houses bear when broadcasting content concerning the judiciary.

A Reckless Broadcast

The proceedings originated from a May 2024 press conference aired by Karma News, featuring one P.C. Jose. During the broadcast, which reached over one million subscribers, Mr. Jose made disparaging remarks regarding the judiciary. He claimed to have constituted a "constitutional court," issued sentencing orders against a High Court judge, and labeled the courts as "bootlickers of the British." Following an initial investigation, the Court moved to initiate contempt proceedings, citing that such dissemination was calculated to scandalize the judiciary and erode public confidence in the rule of law.

The Scope of Responsibility

Initially, the Court named P.C. Jose and the channel's management as respondents. However, the Court opted not to proceed against Mr. Jose, noting his history of receiving treatment at the Mental Asylum at Oolampara. Furthermore, the Court discharged the initial respondent identified as the channel’s CEO after evidence revealed he was not in a decision-making role at the time of the broadcast. The focus eventually shifted to the Managing Director and a fellow director of Galaxy Zoom India Private Limited, who were identified via the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ portal.

The respondents appeared in person before the Court, tendering an unconditional apology. They clarified that as Australian citizens residing abroad since 2006, they had delegated operational management, yet they ultimately took responsibility for the content aired by their company.

Legal Analysis and Judicial Standards

The Court underscored that freedom of the press is not an absolute right that permits the vilification of judicial officers. The ruling clarifies that while media houses possess editorial independence, they must exercise extreme caution. The Court noted that the failure to vet such scurrilous allegations constitutes a significant breach of professional ethics, as media platforms act as conduits for public discourse and must not undermine the institutional integrity of the courts.

Key Observations

• "The freedom of the press, while sacrosanct, carries with it an equally weighty responsibility."
• "Media platforms cannot become conduits for vilifying the judiciary or undermining public confidence in the administration of justice."
• "Such reckless dissemination of derogatory and unverified assertions strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and cannot be countenanced."
• "We are satisfied that the apology tendered by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is bona fide and in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988."

Resolution of the Case

Upon finding the apology to be sincere and accepting the assurance that preventative measures have been implemented to ensure such incidents do not recur, the High Court accepted the apology under Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. The respondents were discharged, and the contempt case was officially closed. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to media organizations that the power to broadcast carries a corresponding duty to safeguard the dignity of public institutions.